On the Misuse of Archaeology for Evangelistic Purposes

If
scholars do not counter sensational claims made by religious groups
perverting science for their own evangelistic purposes,
archaeologists run the risk of having their own research, their own
voices, and potentially their entire discipline diluted by these
ideologically inspired, nonscientific claims. And that is precisely
the goal of religious organizations posing as scientific endeavors:
if they can saturate the media with enough junk science to counter
each claim made by legitimate archaeologists, the public will not be
able to tell the difference between fact and fiction, will get lost
in the exchange, and will see the junk science as a remote
possibility and therefore just as worthy of consideration as
legitimate science.

The April 2010 declaration by the Hong Kong-based group Noah’s
Ark Ministries International (NAMI)1
and their partner, The Media Evangelism Limited,claiming
to have discovered Noah’s Ark is only the latest episode in a
long history of religious organizations misusing archaeology for
evangelistic purposes. Scholars at nearly all points on both the
scientific and religious spectra immediately and vociferously
rejected NAMI’s claims as the sensational drivel of an
overtly evangelical organization seeking to kick off an advertising
campaign2
with the hopes of converting people to Christianity,3
and selling DVDs,4
tickets to a theme park,5
and tickets to a “museum” exhibition,6
while deliberately circumventing the scholarly circles they knew
would expose their balderdash barge before it ever set sail.

Unfortunately, the academic community’s immediate exposure,7
evisceration,8
and outright rejection9
of NAMI’s unsubstantiated claims have not stopped the
group from defending their position.10
And regrettably, the academy’s recent efforts will not stop
future groups from “publishing by press conference” and
making fantastic claims about finding Noah’s Ark, the Ark of
the Covenant, fragments of the “true” cross of Christ,
and pimping both archaeology and religion in an attempt to make a few
bucks and a few more Christians using plainly deceptive means. For
this reason, scholars must continue to counter these outrageous
claims with sound logic and hard evidence each and every time they
are made.

The persistent use of archaeology for evangelical and moneymaking
purposes must be consistently and vigorously countered. It is just as
important for archaeologists to counter the pseudoscientific,
religiously motivated claims of amateur Ark-seekers immediately and
publicly as it is for them to do their own original excavations and
research. For in today’s modern media, where far more people
watch the History Channel and browse the Internet than read
professional journals, if scholars do not counter sensational claims
made by religious groups perverting science for their own
evangelistic purposes, archaeologists run the risk of having their
own research, their own voices, and potentially their entire
discipline diluted by these ideologically inspired, nonscientific
claims. And that is precisely the goal of religious organizations
posing as scientific endeavors: if they can saturate the media with
enough junk science to counter each claim made by legitimate
archaeologists, the public will not be able to tell the difference
between fact and fiction, will get lost in the exchange, and will see
the junk science as a remote possibility and therefore just as worthy
of consideration as legitimate science. While I applaud the
democratization of knowledge and learning that the Internet has
empowered, credibility and authority still have a role to play.
Scholars must not yield the authority of their rigorous, professional
training to amateurs, however zealous and ubiquitous these amateurs
may be. For, while all have the freedom of speech, not all
archaeological claims are created equal.

Evangelists and junk scientists who abuse science for the purpose of
advancing religious claims are counting upon the academy’s
reluctance to get involved and combat nonsense. As long as legitimate
scholars have “more important things to do,” “other,
legitimate articles to write,” and are reticent about getting
involved with responding directly to the public about archaeological
matters, the amateurs, hacks, and religious hucksters win. These
frauds are counting on scholars to remain silent, indifferent, and
weary of public interaction; it is from the negligence and apathy of
the academy that junk science draws its strength.

Unlike public discourse, archaeology is a science that must follow
scientific guidelines, principles, and methodologies. The scientific
method cannot be sporadically employed when it is convenient; the
scientific method is a principle that all scientists must follow at
all times. If one is to employ science in support of one’s
claims, it must be done consistently and followed completely
regardless of where the data lead. Only when one is willing to submit
consistently to the scientific method can one’s scientific
conclusions be taken seriously and can a scientist be considered
credible. One employing science in their research cannot simply
suspend the scientific method when science refutes one’s
religious claims.

It is amazing how those who abuse archaeology for their own religious
purposes are often quick to abandon the laws of physics, exit the
realm of science, and synthesize miraculous explanations in order to
rationalize and maintain problematic claims like the Flood and Noah’s
Ark, while they simultaneously attempt to appeal to science as
authoritative when it potentially supports their religious
assertions. These organizations conveniently, yet hypocritically,
utilize the very science they dispute because they know science is
ultimately the coin of the realm. They couch their claims in
scientific terms in an attempt to convince others of the very claims
real science has refuted. They disguise their pseudoscientific
“discoveries” as actual science and pray that the
scientific community does not view their charade as worthy of the
effort of scholarly rebuttal. Again, scientific impostors prey on the
apathy of scholars.

Therefore, in an effort to practice what I preach, allow me to
illustrate the egregious nature of NAMI’s blatant and
fraudulent abuse of archaeology for evangelistic purposes. I have
already noted that the expedition has taken the self-fulfilling name
of Noah’s Ark Ministries International. Its partner in
scientific crime is The Media Evangelism Limited, a Hong-Kong
based Christian organization “committed to building a Christian
media presence by using every modern means of communication to
promote the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.”11
Thus, from the outset, the group makes no attempt to hide the fact
that it is searching for something specific (Noah’s Ark), that
it is a Christian “ministry” of some ilk, and that its
sole purpose is proselytization – that is, the creation of more
likeminded Christians. Their name alone should arouse suspicions
among scholars.

In response to various scholarly critiques,12NAMI put together a series of video rebuttals.13
In their responses to these legitimate criticisms of their methods
and conclusions, NAMI and The Media Evangelism Limited
have revealed the true motive behind their mission.

In one of the video responses, Man-Fai Yuen, General Secretary of The
Media Evangelism Limited, gives an interview in Chinese. The
interview was released as a video entitled, Do We Believe in the
Noah’s Ark or the God behind It? and is subtitled in
English.14
In the video, Yuen openly explains the evangelical motivation behind
their expedition and recent claims of discovery. First, Yuen
explicitly states that he became a Christian after a previous bogus
Ark discovery claim:

Some
decades ago, there was a booklet called “The Ark Found by
Satellite Photo”. When we look into the booklet, we know that
it talked about a piece of news, which was about a place at the foot
of Mt. Ararat that looked like Noah’s Ark. In the end, people
believed that it was formed by some lava. It was not Noah’s
Ark. Yet because of “The Ark Found by Satellite Photo” I
was led to believe in Jesus Christ. So were many other people. Today,
when I have climbed Mt. Ararat, and found what the booklet described
was not Noah’s Ark. Did it make me drop out of my faith in
Jesus Christ? Not at all. The content design of this booklet was to
arouse people’s curiosity and interests through the news
report. People were encouraged when they read it. By talking about
the news, it guided people to know more about God. Once a person is
led to God, God will keep revealing himself to that person, such
revelations are far more beyond Noah’s Ark.15

Therefore,
because Yuen came to be a Christian by what can only be described as
bogus means (the Ark claim that piqued his interest was, after all,
“not Noah’s Ark”), Yuen feels that it is equally
acceptable to use similarly deceptive means to attract others to
Christianity.

Yuen goes on to discuss whether NAMI’sclaim is
actually verifiable. Shockingly (but perhaps not surprisingly), Yuen
concludes that as long as people come to know Jesus, it was a
worthwhile endeavor.16
Yuen startlingly states:

We
can only trust in the Lord. Therefore for us, do we need 100 percent
solid evidence? On a spiritual journey, so often we do not have 100
percent solid evidence. On the contrary, we should have 100 faith.17

As
for us, we believe that God has led us to climb the mountain; we
believe that God has led us to discover the structure. In fact, we
had believed it before we found anything, when we thought it
might be the place; and when later we found some clues and some
traces; till [sic] finally we discovered the structure.18
(italics mine)

But
scientific methods have no way to prove that it is indeed Noah’s
Ark. So you need to have faith in what the Bible says, that
Noah’s Ark and the global Great Flood did exist.19
(italics mine)

Yuen
ultimately concedes that their claim of “99.9% certainty”20
regarding their discovery of Noah’s Ark was bogus because
“scientific methods have no way to prove that it is indeed
Noah’s Ark.”

Perhaps the most flagrant statement from Yuen was his unapologetic
admission that NAMI was simply using science in an attempt to
make more Christians. At the 5:12 mark in the interview, Yuen
concedes:

Therefore
as mature Christians, we should be accurate in speaking. When we
talk about it from news or scientific aspects, we are just making use
of it. The thing itself is not the truth. It is prone to
change. Even today when I say that this is 90% sure to be the Ark,
assume that one day the 10% rest showed that it is not to be the Ark,
even then I don’t think it matters. Because what people believe
is not only Noah’s Ark itself, they should believe the God who
worked behind Noah’s Ark.21
(italics mine)

The speaker goes on to compare his “discovery” of Noah’s
Ark to the claims made about the Shroud of Turin, which he says
brought many people to believe in Jesus, despite the fact that it has
repeatedly been shown to be a fake. The speaker admits that the
publicity and evangelical opportunities generated by both false
claims outweigh the fact that the claims were indeed false. For the
ethically challenged NAMI “explorers,” the ends
apparently justify the deceptive means. This is perhaps the most
egregious, premeditated, blatant, and irresponsible misuse of
archaeology in recent decades. NAMI appears perfectly
comfortable with fooling people into believing in Christianity using
what they concede may be a hoax.

Perhaps the most incredulous defense of NAMI’s spurious
claims came in a video interview between Panda Lee, a NAMI
team member, and Ahmet Ertugru, the Turkish official working with
NAMI.22
As a part of an ongoing feud23
between Ark hunters, Ertugru states that a former partner in the
search for Noah’s Ark, Dr. Randall Price, Executive Director of
Liberty University’s Center of Judaic Studies, is not a “good
Christian” because Price doubts the unsubstantiated claims of
other Christians, namely NAMI:

And
if everything is it to be lie also, Dr. Price, they have to think
about if he is Christian. So I don’t think he will be the
Christian, as good Christian. Because good Christian they cannot tell
to his brother that they are liars.24
[sic]

According
to NAMI, merely doubting the specious claims of another
Christian - even if the claims are admittedly based upon deception
and the sole motivation of making more Christians – makes one a
bad Christian.

Ironically, Dr. Price is equally guilty of attempting to use
archaeology for evangelistic purposes. In a recent video made
available on the TrueLife.org website,25
Dr. Price concludes a survey of archaeological evidence he believes
proves the validity of the Bible with an invitation to follow Jesus:

Friends,
Jesus was right because he was a prophet. But he was more than a
prophet; he was also the Son of God. One of the last words of Jesus
as he entered in the city of Jerusalem was that if these keep silent,
the stones will cry out. You’ve seen the witness of the
archeological record and we know that not one of these archeological
discoveries has ever contradicted a biblical fact. In fact, they have
only complemented its witness. The archaeological record has shown us
that the Bible can be trusted. If the Bible is a reliable
archaeological witness, then the message of the Bible can be trusted,
and the message of the Bible concerns Jesus. Will you trust him?26

Thus,
despite ending his working and financial relationship with the NAMI
expedition and rejecting NAMI’s findings,27
Dr. Price still misuses archaeology as an evangelistic tool by
weaving together select pieces of archaeological data into a
religious “coat of many colors” and calling on viewers to
trust Jesus. Price moved from expounding upon archaeological data to
making overt religious claims about the divinity of Jesus. This is
simply not the role of archaeology.

In the end, Dr. Price’s misuse of archaeology pales in
comparison to NAMI’s recent campaign. It has become
quite clear that NAMI’s entire mission was a
premeditated campaign of deception intended to use false claims about
Noah’s Ark to convert people to Christianity. It is utterly
unthinkable that any group of Christians would think that this is an
acceptable form of evangelism, much less an acceptable form of
science.

A standard line of zealous, evangelistic reasoning is regularly
exploited to raise money from Christians for similar religious
expeditions. The sales pitch argues: “You want people to
believe the Bible, don’t you? Well, if we find Noah’s
Ark, the world will have to believe.” As a result, many people
give to Noah’s Ark expeditions hoping that a discovery will
trigger a sequence of events leading to the world believing the
claims made in the Bible. Unfortunately, most of these donors end up
doing little more than funding free trips to Turkey for a group of
amateur tourists. They fly to exotic places on the donors’
dime, go mountain climbing, and get named as honorable citizens at
fancy dinners.28
And after enjoying an exciting trip abroad, any remaining money is
used to fund the group’s various ministries.

These groups ultimately reach one of two results: they either find
nothing or they make sensational claims directly to the press, only
later to have their “findings” refuted by the
international scholarly community. However, in both of the above
scenarios, the organization returns to its donors to ask for still
more funding. The organization uses one of two approaches: they will
either claim to be victims of religious persecution by “godless”
scientists and insist that their claims were refuted in an effort to
“suppress the truth of the faith,” or, the organization
will ask for more money in order to “finish the job,”
exploiting the familiar line: “But we’re so close.”
Of course, every year, they get no closer, and every year donors
forget that dozens of previous “expeditions” have claimed
to discover Noah’s Ark and yet have produced nothing.

Tips
for Doing “Biblical Archaeology”

There is a better way to do archaeology that potentially deals with
claims made in the Bible. The true archaeologist does not seek the
big discovery that changes all we know in one amazing find, but
rather gives his or her life to seasons of excavation and discovery,
letting the evidence speak for itself until the larger picture of the
social, economic, and yes, at times, religious makeup of the society
is slowly revealed. So for those seeking to balance faith and
archaeology, here are a few tips:

1. Don’t go “looking for things.” Archaeologists
dig. We dig and we find what we find. Wherever the evidence leads us,
we go. Whatever the evidence says, we report. Archaeologists don’t
go looking to “prove the Bible,” because the early
methodology of “a spade in one hand and a Bible in the other”
is deeply flawed in that one quickly begins to see what one wants to
see or hopes to see, rather than what’s really there.

Scholars must follow the data wherever it leads. Sometimes the
archaeological data does not align with the text of the Bible. This
is true about many sites and many verses. This does not mean that the
Bible contains no truth or verifiable facts in other places. In fact,
these refuted claims are often quite important; they tell scholars a
lot about the author and the particular message the author was
attempting to convey. Why would the author of a particular text in
the Bible make a claim that isn’t supported by the evidence and
doesn’t appear to be historical? Was the author relying on oral
tradition? Did the author intentionally fabricate a story and if so
why? These points of contention are crucial for any scholar seeking
to examine the political and social history of a particular period,
as well as the period the story was committed to writing.

2. Follow sound scientific methodology.Soundmethodology
produces sound results, and sound results will be better received by
both scholars and the public. Likewise, sound results based on
accepted methodology, transparent excavation, replicable
experimentation, and critical analysis will result in increased
credibility for an archaeologist and his or her organization. Do not
fudge. Take good notes. Log everything, especially if it is contrary
to your working hypothesis. Nothing is more impressive and convincing
methodologically than a scholar willing to concede that his or her
own working hypothesis has been disproved and needs revision, or that
it is fundamentally flawed and must be abandoned.

Methodical monotony may be boring, but it is an archaeologist’s
friend in the long run because it allows subsequent excavators to
retrace each step the prior archaeologist made, so that each bucket
of dirt and each decision can be reviewed and confirmed as
verifiable. This keeps the subsequent excavators from having to
restart each portion of the excavation from scratch. Credibility is
earned over a long period of time and not with a single find. But
once earned, credibility carries a lot of weight, and it is by the
archaeological method one employs that the academy will ultimately
judge an archaeologist’s credibility.

3. Understand that not every archaeological object is the same. Each
piece of evidence should be judged on a case-by-case basis.
Therefore, just because the evidence for Noah’s Ark or the Holy
Grail is lacking and these items are most likely legendary, it does
not necessarily follow that the ancient Israelites did not march
behind a gold-covered, wooden box (the Ark of the Covenant) when they
stormed into battle. In fact, the Ark of the Covenant is most likely
historical precisely because it would have been highly problematic
for a people who were supposedly forbidden from making idols to
revere such a prominent, handcrafted cultic object. Each object is
unique and should be treated independently from other objects.

4. Archaeologists shouldn’t seek “treasure.” This
may have been the case in archaeology’s distant past when it
was little more than a hunt for exotic treasure, but today’s
archaeologists are more interested in ethnographic studies and
settlement patterns than they are in finding a piece of the “true
cross.” Walls, pots, inscriptions, and coins are far more
important than gold and silver, as they tell us exponentially more in
their proper context than do “treasures.”

5. Partner up. It is common practice for archaeological excavations
to have multiple partners that usually include a representative from
the host government’s archaeological department, the
sponsorship of one or more scholars from reputable academic
institutions, and hoards of volunteers. Most proper excavations are
far too expensive to carry out privately, so most archaeologists take
on scholarly partners that lend the dig credibility and more
importantly, accountability. Likewise, most archaeologists work their
way up through other excavations. Rare is the occasion that an
archaeologist strikes out on his own and has immediate success.
Archaeology requires substantial fundraising and institutional
support, and once one begins asking for funds, scholars justifiably
begin to question the archaeologist’s motives. Credible
archaeologists are humble, pay their dues, earn their stripes, and
only after they have established their credibility and gathered the
formal education needed to practice archaeology properly are they
considered legitimate.

6. Submit to the peer-review process. Credible archaeologists submit
to some form of a peer-review process and allow their findings to be
critiqued by other scholars. Some submit formal articles for
publication in refereed journals. Others present papers at national
conferences. Still others make their findings available immediately
online via blogs and websites and invite comments and feedback.
Regardless of what method is adopted, good archaeologists welcome
criticism and feedback, even when (and especially when) they know
some will disagree with their findings. Peer-review and critique is
the only way to ensure that your interpretations will gain the
traction they need to become an accepted consensus. Remember that
ultimately it is not about what you believe, or even what you can
prove. Rather, a credible archaeologist or archaeology program is
judged by the critical methodology it uses to reach its conclusions.
If the science is good, and the results are reviewed by others and
published in credible journals, books, and websites, then the program
and the scholar will be considered credible.

7. Finally, real archaeologists never, ever search for the Ark of the
Covenant, Noah’s Ark, or the Holy Grail. Adventure quests will
always bring immediate and well-deserved derision and condemnation
from the academic community.

Archaeology should never be used for evangelistic purposes. It is not
the role of science to prove claims of divinity. This is because the
very nature of the scientific method operates on a system of
disproof. The scientific method never proves anything; it can only
disprove a proposed hypothesis. One proposes a hypothesis and the
scientific method seeks to disprove it. Those hypotheses that are not
disproven remain as viable explanations. This is why both scientists
and people of faith rightly argue that while one cannot prove the
existence of a god, neither can science disprove the existence of a
god.

All of this is to say that science cannot prove anything:, it can
only disprove. Evidence is never the last word; it is only the best
word thus far. And it is no coincidence that the Bible does not
operate on a system of evidence and proof. On the occasion that a
piece of “evidence” was demanded prior to belief, John
20:24-29 states that “Doubting” Thomas was not as
“blessed” as those who did not ask for evidence. In the
end, while faith claims may be informed by archaeological context,
archaeology never proves the veracity of the claims made in the
Bible. That is a matter of faith – a realm where archaeology
should not and must not be exploited to say something that it simply
cannot.

Notes

1
See the Noah’s
Ark Ministries International
(NAMI) website at http://www.noahsarksearch.net. This organization
is not to be confused with the National
Alliance on Mental Illness
(NAMI) at http://www.nami.org.

3
According to The
Media Evangelism Limited’s
website, the group’s mission is to build “a Christian
media presence by using every modern means of communication to
promote the kingdom of our Lord Jesus Christ.”
http://www.media.org.hk/main/asp/corporate_web_eng.asp.

4The Days Of Noah
(2005) directed by Yeung Wing-Cheung.
http://www.hkflix.com/xq/asp/filmID.534366/qx/details.htm.

25
According to its website, TrueLife.org is “is a unique
interdenominational non-profit Christian organization dedicated to
showing the world that the Bible is true and reliable.”
http://truelife.org/home.

26
See the 11:47-12:28 mark in “Does Archaeology Support the
Bible?”
http://truelife.org/home/category_video_list_show?status=video&video=99.

27
See Dr. Price’s April 30, 2010 response to NAMI’s
announcement at http://www.worldofthebible.com/news.htm.

Comments (10)

Biblical criticism must consider the true spirit of the biblical text. Too many scholars such as Cargill have an agenda to destroy the Bible's authenticity. Christians must understand before one denies events in the scripture that Jesus' words support the Old Testament. Cargill fails to mention that archaeology actually supports most of the biblical text more often than not. Cargill has no idea whether a figure named Noah built a ship to avoid a flood. Most believes of the Bible understand that not every word is to be taken literally, yet Cargill wants to depict believers as stupid and idiotic. Such is the scholarly world.

#1 - Tony Barrett - 07/03/2010 - 14:49

tony, thank you for your response.

you have provided the readers with the typical, anti-intellectual straw man argument for the defense of the historicity of the bible. yet, you have provided no examples and no evidence - not even a scriptural reference. you merely provide a sweeping generalization: 'that archaeology actually supports most of the biblical text more often than not.' i disagree. there are many places where it does not. (for example, see kenyon's work on jericho. or see the claims about a six-day creation and a worldwide flood, which have been completely disproved by modern science.)

what do you mean by 'the true spirit of the biblical text'? those are just words with no meaning. they just sound pretty.

i have no agenda to 'destroy the bible's authenticity.' i do, however, intend to demonstrate those areas where the bible makes mistakes and where it makes claims that are not only *not* supported archaeologically, but are, in fact, disproved by science.

regarding your comment that 'jesus' words support the old testament,' again, what do you mean by that? it is vague and rhetorical. by this do you mean that jesus continues the old testament's commitment to the law? paul might disagree. by this do you mean jesus maintains god's commandments recorded in the hebrew bible to remain separate and pure from gentiles? kosher regulations? the rights of women? financial regulations? again, you make sweeping claims, but provide no evidence, just words.

my intent is not to depict 'believers' as 'idiotic and stupid.' my intent is to ask 'believers' to think critically about their faith and to root all claims in fact, evidence, and reason. and, my point is to call out those 'believers' who egregiously misrepresent and abuse science for the advancement of their evangelistic agenda. my article is not an indictment of christians, it is an indictment of those christians who make false claims with deceptive motives for the purpose of making more 'believers' like them.

#2 - robert cargill - 07/03/2010 - 15:54

Professor Cargill has dredged up the Kenyon Jericho excavation. OK, so the walls of Jericho didn't fall down. That is easy. As I mentioned, not all believers take every word as inerrant. But can the good professor say that there wasn't a battle near the site and that the details were not changed over time? I do think critically and you know that the archaeological evidence for the Kings of Israel and Judah and their battles with Assyrian and Babylonian Kings is unassailable. Here are more examples of evidence for archaeological support for the Bible. You know that the destruction of Hazor gives credence to the Joshua story, and you know that the Tel Dan tablet verifies that David was indeed an important king. You should know that Solomon's temple is a common pattern for temples in the area. And as I mentioned, can you provide evidence that a Noah didn't build an Ark? Or that the ancestors of the Hebrews were not named Abraham and Sarah? Can you state emphatically that some Hebrews were not in Egypt? And how do you know that the Copper Scroll doesn't not contain locations where treasure was not buried? There are a number of books on the market that demonstrate that archaeology supports much of the biblical text and I can give you their names. Tony

#3 - Tony Barrett - 07/04/2010 - 15:33

I'm not finding any place where Cargill is trying to debunk the Bible. And I also think those trying to force others to accept the Bible as innerant and factual, are on the wrong tack. At the same time, I think it's a mistake to try to 'prove' OR 'disprove' the Bible with archaeology. The Bible is a book of faith, and faith does not, by definition need proof, nor is it a matter for science to address. Every religion has a different type of faith and a different version of creation and of whether it is Jesus or Mohammed or Buddha or Chaitanya that we should regard as a savoir or example. The argument about which religion is 'right' is just as pointless and divisive as trying to force people to accept the Bible as literal fact, trying to debunk it with fact, etc.

#4 - tusu - 07/14/2010 - 09:08

Neither do I think that Dr. Cargill has attempted to “debunk” the Bible. Exposing the ulterior motives of people who would exploit believers and their purses is hardly the work of a debunker.

Mr. Barrett tells us that “most believers of the Bible understand that not every word is to taken literally,” yet goes on to assume that every biblical event occurred in the manner described. Therefore, there had to have been an Abraham and Sarah, Joshua must have destroyed Hazor, Noah must have built an ark, and the Copper Scroll has to be a treasure map.

Eponymous figures do not destroy an origins tradition. Battles take place, but the victors write the history. Greek, Hebrew, and Babylonian flood stories do not explain the absence of one in the Nile flood plane. And while Schliemann did use the Iliad in his search for Troy, the treasure he found came from the “wrong” level.

In many places, the biblical record does parallel the archaeological record, but the biblical record is a theological record, not an artifactual one. In many places, the parallel lines are not going to meet — yet both records can still lead to wisdom.

#5 - Raymond Wood - 07/18/2010 - 11:08

We always knew that the stories about Hazor in Joshua 11 and Judges 4 could not both be taken at face value as historical records. It is extremely unlikely that archaeology could decide which was closer to the truth. If I were an archaeologist I wouldn't mind making an Amazing Find (King Jabin's personal diary?) that would really settle matters: who would? I wouldn't mind getting ahead of the academic pack - who would? But we should remember that huge personal triumphs like that are rare in any context and that patience in all enquiries is a great, maybe even a Christian, virtue.

#6 - Martin Hughes - 07/20/2010 - 16:33

I don't think tony you read Cargill's response to your comment . I fully agree with what he has to say. My faith must be grounded in reason also. Did not God give me a mind ? Did He not give me free will? I am not offended at all by Cargill. His article was informative.

#7 - Charles Reed - 07/26/2010 - 22:13

This article is right on target. The cause of the gospel is not served by pseudo-science or manipulation with scientific facts. Ultimately this kind of "post-modern" approach will have the effect of a boomerang for the truth of God's Word and the credibility of the believers. There is also the all important ethical element. Of course, this does not mean that all scientific enterprise also is filled with bias and philosophical (world vieuw)assumptions. But that problem is not solved in this manner.

#8 - Marlon Winedt - 07/27/2010 - 14:40

#9 - Dr. Amy L. Beam - 02/23/2012 - 22:15

Marlon is right on target. Pseudo-science does not advance God's plan. It just leads people away from becoming Christians. That's because the only people who fall for this pseudo-science are the same kinds of people, had they been raised differently, who would have been following tabloids religiously. People who can provide valuable contributions to religion are not the kind of people who value "National Enquirer" religiion.

#10 - Brian Newman - 04/28/2013 - 12:05

Use the form below to submit a new comment. Comments are moderated
and logged, and may be edited. You must provide your full name.
Inappropriate material will not be posted. Please do not post inappropriate web sites, they will be deleted.